Joe Biden proposals for banning some firearms, high capacity magazines, immunity changes

[Kentonio]

I don't like the idea of holding manufacturers liable for the illegal use of their products.

Totally agree with this. If something is legal to make and sell, then making the manufacturers responsible for irresponsible or illegal usage of their product is a nonsense.

 

[Danthemailman]

Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting | The White House

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

I just got through watching a recent video by Colion Noir in regards to Biden's statement.

 

[98cwitr]

Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting | The White House

This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.

We, the American People, need to refuse this; completely and outright. Enough.

Ditch the NRA, get with GOA, SAF, and your state's 2A group. Push.

 

[Desk trauma]

We, the American People, need to refuse this; completely and outright.

No thanks. It has some decent points and some that need to be modified, nothing that would make me outright reject it.

Am I kicked out of the We The People now?

 

[98cwitr]

No thanks. It has some decent points and some that need to be modified, nothing that would make me outright reject it.

Am I kicked out of the We The People now?

Supporting other's Constitutional and inalienable right to keep and bear arms should not be up for debate; sadly it is....we've allowed the appeals to emotion get the better of us.

 

[Desk trauma]

Supporting other's Constitutional and inalienable right to keep and bear arms should not be up for debate;

All parts of the constitution can be up for debate, it's a document written in ink not holy writ carved in stone.

 

[98cwitr]

All parts of the constitution can be up for debate, it's a document written in ink not holy writ carved in stone.

Thus the term "inalienable," due to the lack of faith in the Source of those rights, is eroded and dare I say nullified.

 

[Desk trauma]

Thus the term "inalienable," due to the lack of faith in the Source of those rights, is eroded and dare I say nullified.

Any thing within the Constitution is up to be changed. The amendment process does not leave things such as the second amendment sectioned off as untouchable.

 

[98cwitr]

Any thing within the Constitution is up to be changed. The amendment process does not leave things such as the second amendment sectioned off as untouchable.

The Truths that produced it, enumerated, don't change though.

 

[Arcangl86]

Thus the term "inalienable," due to the lack of faith in the Source of those rights, is eroded and dare I say nullified.

Inalienable rights isn't even in the Constitution. That's the Declaration, and in there they are listed as "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You can believe that the right to bear arms is part of the liberty interest, but there is nothing inherently saying that.

 

[Desk trauma]

The Truths that produced it, enumerated, don't change though.

Yet if it was the intent that the rights included in the original set of amendments were to be never, ever altered it would have made sense to make note of that some place in the document.

This is the problem with the veneration of the Constitution, it derails practical discussion of good governance with mysticism.

 

[tall73]

Any thing within the Constitution is up to be changed. The amendment process does not leave things such as the second amendment sectioned off as untouchable.

I don't see any serious effort or proposals to alter the second amendment. But measures such as holding manufacturers liable for illegal use of a product is something with the potential to remove arms without an amendment. And I don't think it will be upheld by the courts.

 

[A2SG]

I don't see any serious effort or proposals to alter the second amendment. But measures such as holding manufacturers liable for illegal use of a product is something with the potential to remove arms without an amendment. And I don't think it will be upheld by the courts.

It seems to me, if gun manufacturers faced a financial or legal disadvantage to guns being used illegally, then they'd be more likely to find some way to make that more difficult. I don't know how, exactly, maybe a fingerprint scanner like some cell phones have, making it only possible for the registered owner to operate them, something like that (not a gun guy, if that isn't obvious).

But if guns being used illegally is financially advantageous for gun manufacturers (more guns stolen means even more guns are bought to replace them, cha-ching!), then there's no incentive to even try to make it harder to use guns illegally.

-- A2SG, I realize my example above is probably wildly impractical, if not impossible...so please refrain from explaining exactly why......as I said, not a gun guy.....

 

[iluvatar5150]

Thus the term "inalienable," due to the lack of faith in the Source of those rights, is eroded and dare I say nullified.

The Truths that produced it, enumerated, don't change though.

Those rights came from man, not God. Unless you have some weird Bible translation I’ve never heard of before.

 

[Belk]

Thus the term "inalienable," due to the lack of faith in the Source of those rights, is eroded and dare I say nullified.

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: inalienable
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

If it is inalienable it quit literally can not be nullified or eroded.

 

[Belk]

Supporting other's Constitutional and inalienable right to keep and bear arms should not be up for debate; sadly it is....we've allowed the appeals to emotion get the better of us.

You are not the arbiter or what is constitutional. There are plenty of these proposals that fit in fine with the constitution.

 

[98cwitr]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective
adjective: inalienable
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

If it is inalienable it quit literally can not be nullified or eroded.

And what is the source, or who is the grantor, of these rights; according to the Declaration of Independence?

 

[98cwitr]

You are not the arbiter or what is constitutional. There are plenty of these proposals that fit in fine with the constitution.

If you are able to judge what "fits fine" then so am I. That's part of the American ideal: the people's ability to dictate the terms of government.

Do you agree or disagree that the intent of the founder's placing the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights was primarily for the sake of opposing (or deterring) a tyrannical government?

 

[Belk]

It seems to me, if gun manufacturers faced a financial or legal disadvantage to guns being used illegally, then they'd be more likely to find some way to make that more difficult. I don't know how, exactly, maybe a fingerprint scanner like some cell phones have, making it only possible for the registered owner to operate them, something like that (not a gun guy, if that isn't obvious).

But if guns being used illegally is financially advantageous for gun manufacturers (more guns stolen means even more guns are bought to replace them, cha-ching!), then there's no incentive to even try to make it harder to use guns illegally.

-- A2SG, I realize my example above is probably wildly impractical, if not impossible...so please refrain from explaining exactly why......as I said, not a gun guy.....

This seems a particularly poor method of achieving the stated goal. If the desire is to have bio-locks (which are a thing) or other safety features simply mandate those as part of manufacture the same as we do safety features on cars.

 

[Belk]

If you are able to judge what "fits fine" then so am I. That's part of the American ideal: the people's ability to dictate the terms of government.

Do you agree or disagree that the intent of the founder's placing the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights was primarily for the sake of opposing (or deterring) a tyrannical government?

No, we have actual legal precedents that show your claims to be incorrect. It is not I whom am judging it constitutional, it is actual judges ruling on the constitutionality of the measures.